To think that circumcising baby/young boys is the equivalent to FGM?

[Cress42]

I’m part of a baby group - our babies are all younger than 12 months and there are parents looking to get their sons REcircumcised 😢

They’re all based in America. I understand it’s a cultural norm there and nobody is talking about any medical issues to warrant having them circumcised.

It’s a fact that it causes desensitisation and part of me feels that along with the general pain of the operation this is similar to FGM.

The baby can’t consent to the mutilation. Also mutilation isn’t too severe a word, it literally means: act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal.

YABU - It’s not similar to FGM. There’s nothing wrong with it, snip away!

YANBU - It’s similar / the male equivalent to FGM and unless carried out for medical reasons it should be up to the discretion of the person who is being circumcised

A (more often than not) infant boy has his foreskin removed

I agree with your post but the average male foreskin is 15 square inches, or 38 cm2. Obviously it’s not that large when removed as a baby, but that is what baby boys are deprived of in adulthood. Try drawing a rectangle of 3 inches by 5 inches on your own body. Probably only enough room on the thigh. Imagine that amount of skin being removed. It’s not insignificant.

Ok if you want me to tell you why it’s wrong….

No-one should decide to put holes in another person’s body, because they need decorating.

They can cause infection.

They can cause allergic reactions.

They can cause injury.

And all for the sake of the parents, not the child.

Hope this helps you.

I didn't say it was insignificant.

@LoopyLooooo

Yeah whatever. It's a pretty straightforward process, albeit unnecessary which is why I didn't do it for my children.

Why is ear piercing in a conversation about genital mutilation?

Putting holes in a baby, cutting bits off a baby is all abuse. It's inflicting unnecessary pain for no good reason. But back in the day parents were thick about a lot of things. There's no excuse for it these days though.

This kind of extreme language is a bit ridiculous, nobody is going to listen to this.

It is unnecessary but it's literally two dots on someone's ear. To call this 'abuse' is an insult to millions of people who have been abused.

Also, it's not 'back in the day', people still do this. It's mostly died down amongst white British people but lots of other people do it. Unlike FGM or male circumcision, babies aren't dropping down dead, suffering depression or lifelong dysfunction.

They just choose not to wear earrings.

That was my inference from your post because you said they are in no way comparable, then described the difference in terms of tissue. You then said:

so no. I don't think male circumcision is the equivalent of fgm. Perhaps when the fgm is a symbolic nick across the clitoral hood

So I inferred you thought male genital mutilation was the male equivalent of a symbolic nick. Apologies if my inference was wrong based on this. It seems we agree a significant amount of proportionate tissue is removed from males.

Did you not read my whole post?

Yes. And I said I agreed with it. But I wanted to be clear that even with strong objections to the practice as a whole, it’s not the equivalent of a symbolic nick. You agree it’s a significant amount of tissue so my inference was wrong, therefore I now agree with all of your post, instead of 99% of it originally.

YABU, stupid comments like this minimise the horrific barbaric practice of FGM. Circumcision is nothing at all like FGM. I don’t like the idea of circumcision but apparently there are health benefits to it.

but apparently there are health benefits to it.

There are no health benefits to newborn circumcision.

I don’t like it but it’s not the same

I remember years ago my baby son had to have an operation because his kidney wasn’t functioning properly. On the same ward there was a baby with Hirschsprungs who had undergone a big operation to remove part of his colon. On the day the parents took him home the mother said to the nurse that he was going to be circumcised due to their religion after he had recovered. It upset me so much at the time and I still think about it. I don’t think it’s as bad as FGM but it’s still awful to put babies through an unnecessary operation in the name of religion.

No idea but you asked what was wrong with it so I answered.

Comparing circumcision to FGM is awful and minimises the absolute damage to girls.

Circumcision is sometimes medically necessary - is what happens to girls EVER medically necessary?

You can disagree with the practice without comparing it to FGM.

Ridiculous

There are no health benefits to newborns / young boys

Stupid comments like yours normalise the practice of circumcision

Look up what FGM actually is. It is nowhere near the same.

Neither is acceptable

Im male have friends who were snipped. It hasn't effected their lives in any way.

FGM is dreadful and designed to ensure women cannot enjoy sex. Now you cannot compare the two

Personally I have a real issue with this black and white suggestion that male circumcision is alright if it's for medical reasons but disgusting if done for cultural or religious reasons. Because how is that going to make you feel, as a parent, if you have to make a decision where there's possibly a medical issue down the line, but not definitely? I totally understand people saying they personally wouldn't do it unless for medical reasons - that's one thing. But the hyperbolic language used, like 'mutilation' and 'abuse' can create such feelings of guilt and sorrow, unnecessarily. And can also lead to some terribly unfair judgement on the parts of some.

Im male have friends who were snipped. It hasn't effected their lives in any way.

You, or they, have no idea what sex would have been like with their foreskin intact.

I agree. It is being done for religious reasons which in my opinion is barbaric and unnecessary

But in the same vein why get upset over something you never experienced? My circumcised ex husband had a (too) active and colourful sex life and would have laughed if told he was missing out. The fact is the sensations were in different areas to an uncircumcised penis but not less. Having said that he would not have chosen circumcision if he’d been allowed to choose.

Also it is nothing like FGM, that’s a horrible idea.

I’m struggling to understand what you mean. Do you mean that some boys are circumcised because it looks like there will be a future problem with their penis, and those parents won’t ever know 100% if it was necessary?

Or have I totally misunderstood?

I actually wish my ds had been circumcised as a baby… the nhs kept saying he might need it but wait until he is older… our gp now says he does need it (he is 9 now) but the waiting list is so long, the consultants keep disagreeing about it and he is dead against the idea now and I’m not comfortable forcing him into it.

@GoodnightGentlemen that's exactly what I mean. If, as a parent, you're told it's an option that could prevent future medical problems, I wouldn't deem that 'medically necessary'. Does that mean you're abusive if you choose to go down that route?

I don't think I explained my point very well though. It's really that I struggle to see how the same action can be 'barbaric' and 'abusive' if done for one reason, totally acceptable if done for another. Such rhetoric could make it very difficult to make an objective decision where there are potential medical issues down the road.

I think one of the big differences is that if it’s done on older children for medical reasons then it’s done with anaesthetic.

Also, I don’t think anyone would argue it’s never necessary- sometimes it is- but that goes for a lot of medical things.

A mastectomy for instance- everyone knows it’s a serious operation that can have serious psychological consequences, but we accept it is sometimes necessary and the lesser of two evils. People wouldn’t think of that as barbaric or abusive. Parents deciding to give their daughter a mastectomy for religious reasons though, rather than medical reasons, would definitely be barbaric and abusive.

Basically all medical procedures would be abusive if they were being done/not done because a third party decided it was necessary because of their belief system. Like withholding blood transfusions.